(no title)
bolder88 | 12 years ago
Current situation:
* You request website A, which includes 3rd party code from C. C drops a cookie
* You request website B, which includes 3rd party code from C. C knows you previously visited A.
New situation: * You request website A, which includes 3rd party code from C. Website A sends details of your visit via a backchannel to C.
* You request website B, which includes 3rd party code from C. Websites B sends details of your visit via backchannels, and C knows you previously visited A.
Wouldn't you rather such tracking to be out in the open and easily blocked - stop accepting cookies, rather than them creating backchannels to track you instead?Yes - You should give up if you think you will able to continue sending websites HTTP requests directly, whilst not being tracked.
jrochkind1|12 years ago
So, yeah, I see your point, but maybe I _would_ rather make it much more expensive to do that, and much harder for them to do it succesfully rather than messing up a technical detail.
On the other hand, I guess eventually they'd get it right in commodity software that everyone can use. Eventually.
Really, I don't know why anyone that wants to do the kind of tracking we're talking about is using cookies anyway, instead of user-agent fingerprints that have been shown to be pretty much unique anyway. So the cookies is perhaps all a distraction. The browser makers don't need to invent a new cookie-less browser fingerprint tracking system, they've already got it with the over-specialized user-agents.
paulgb|12 years ago
gcb0|12 years ago
you have unique combination of IP+UserAgent+extra Headers. That is enough. A and B does not even have to send anything. And this will continue to work even without cookies.
gcb0|12 years ago
For example, google provides jquery CDN. website A and B uses that to save some cents on bandwidth. Google now knows you visited which pages on website A and B. and if A was a backpack store and B was a pressure cooker review, expect the NSA :D